Slashdot Mirror
Search and Seizure at the Supreme Court
Pemdas writes "On March 22nd, the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear a case involving an arrest for lack of producing ID on the demand of a police officer. Dudley Hiibel was parked off the road, and was asked 11 times to show ID to the police officer, who gave the justification of 'investigating an investigation.' Finally, he was arrested, and eventually convicted of delaying a police officer,' and fined $250. The incident occurred in Humboldt County, Nevada; Mr. Hiibel's side of the story includes a good section on Terry stops, and has a video of the incident for download. The parallels to the previously covered Gilmore v. Ashcroft case are striking, and the ruling will be an interesting precedent on the issue of requiring ID's. The ACLU, EPIC, and EFF, among others, have filed Amicus briefs in the case."
People crying about Nazi Germany, Ashcroft, the erosion of civil liberties. I don't have to read the article, or watch the video, as this is a VERY general concept:
This could have happened just as easily in 1994, 1984, or 1964 as in 2004 (or 2003, or whenever this actual incident happened). It's not about Bush, or the "climate" in America, or 9/11. It's not about an SS officer saying "papers please", or Jews wearing yellow stars, or a long slippery slope. It's about whether or not, and under what conditions, a local municipal police officer involved in an active investigation can compel a person to identify themselves.
How is a police officer involved in an active investigation supposed to identify a person? Im assuming that the physical geographic location this took place is also pertinent, since I'm guessing a police officer didn't just randomly stop to make someone identify themselves in a location that had nothing to do with what he was investigating.
No, I'm not going to say he should have just produced ID, or told them his name, or use the "if he's got nothing to hide" argument. But it's sickening to see the oh-so-typical leftist slashdot response. Hell, not only did I not RTFA, I don't even have to read the comments to guess the standard canned responses.
So instead of getting all self righteous and spewing the obligatory security vs liberty quote - which is wildly irrelevant to this discussion, by the way - why don't you give me YOUR opinion on when a police officer in an investigation in a particular area can rightfully ask someone to identify themselves, because I'd really like to know.
They didn't arrest him. They didn't force him to go back inside. They just asked who he was and they made a judgement that he wasn't the one they were looking for. It is suspicious to go out at night in an area where there are crimes being committed.
Say someone phones in a stabbing. Is it wrong for the police to stop a man standing around on the street soaked in blood holding a knife and ask him for ID?
My other first post is car post.
For the record regardless of whatever cigar toting Clinton did, can you change what you had for lunch yesterday? I think not. Fact remains Asscroft is the one in power now, and the one who is looking to pass all these kooked out laws, not Clinton. So put your petty political party to the side and shoot from the hip with facts, or at least with something worth substance.
You're right maybe I should educate myself maybe I wouldn't make so many typos and remember to include links to sources of my information so trollers don't get all pissy in their underoos. Point well taken thank you.MoFscker
No cop deserves the slightest respect at all. Fuck them. The only good policeman is a dead one.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
>How is "heard you guys have been fighting"
>corruption?
It's not. Use of force before making an accusation is. I'm sure at the root of this story there's alcohol use. Sometimes I wish they'd ban that like they banned marijuana. Then at least there'd be a level playing field...
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The second amendment isn't about shooting cops, it's about preparedness. At least, that's how the writers of the US Constitution saw it. It was a different world then.
Actually there's been a debate for decades over what they meant. The most persuasive argument imho is that it was a provision that allowed the states to maintain their militias. It was probably not meant to guarantee individual gun ownership rights.
Except he was responding to a _possible_ crime. A father and his daughter arguing while she drove. So like responsible citizens they pull over and cool off rather than endangering the rest of us.
Then along comes the pig. He's heard there might be something going on. So his oinks into a situation as an entirely unwanted third party. In his ignorance he demands ID when no crime is evident. When it's not forthcoming he starts arresting people.
It was a blatent abuse of power. Yes, there are rational _reasons_ for the officers actions. But they have to be good reasons that can be applied in every case.
If an acceptable cause for a required ID check is a possible connection to a possible crime then we've just been transported to Berlin 35'
1.Remind me not to move to Georgia.
2.Georgia, and probably the rest of the United People's Republic of America is now officially a "Police State". The police are always right. Civilians are always wrong. The Police are all-powerful and may kill or imprison at their discretion and whim.
3.To anyone who does not see this as an obscene (and completely pointless) abuse of power, please renounce your citizenship and move to China ASAP.
4. Would giving the cop the finger, making pig noises, and speaking in intimate terms about his mother, constitute a crime as well?
Actually, I already know the answer to this. Cops are treated as Special Citizens in our republic. While it is legal to tease, insult, or be disrespectful of a regular citizen, to do so to a POLICE OFFICER is a serious, serious crime.
5. Although I do appreciate your comments, you are a member of the US Gestapo. Please die as soon as possible. Thank you. Near the end of my life, I plan to kill as many pigs (not the smart kind) as I can manage to do before being killed myself. Hopefully explosives will have advanced by that time. I consider killing police in a police state to be as noble an act as killing members of the SS (Germany) or GPU (USSR).
6. I am not posting this as an AC, but hopefully the Georgia Police do not have jurisdiction in my state. If you do then come and get me you f**ng pig!
7. Do all cops vote Republican? Just curious.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Instead of hating [the Gestapo] out of turn, why don't you research your opinion and present the problems as you see them to the local [SS/GPU/NKVD/KGB offices]? They will listen, especially if you do your research. OR better yet, become an [SS officer] and do the job better than the current [SS officers].
We need good [SS officers], and if you are able to develop that ability to see and treat [potential perps] as individuals you would probably make an effective [SS officer] yourself. However, it sounds like you don't view the [SS officers] as individuals though, so you might have a problem in this redguard.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.